Complainant held United States
trademark for <Adserve>, having used name since 1971. Respondent
registered domain name <adserve.com> without searching registry for
trademark registrations.

Held, Name Transferred to Complainant.

Domain name at issue is clearly
identical to Complainants trademark. Complainant is not required
to show actual confusion as same mark was sufficient evidence that confusion
likely to exist . Respondents intention to associate the domain
name at issue with business was insufficient to establish rights or legitimate
interests in the mark. Respondent was negligent to not search the
trademark registry in his own country before registering domain name.
Respondents inaction to develop a site for the domain name, particularly
once he knew of Complainants interest, constituted bad faith registration
and use. Additionally, Respondent owned a large share of domain name
licensing company.Policies referred toUniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy, adopted August 26, 1999

1. A Complaint was filed by the Complainant,
COLUMBINE JDS SYSTEMS, INC., of Denver, Colorado, with eResolution naming
as the Respondent, JIN LU, the registered owner of the disputed domain
name - ADSERVE.COM.

2. The procedural history of this
case is set out in detail in the letter sent by Me Emamanuelle LéTourneau,
Clerk, eResolution, to Maurice Wolf, lead Panelist, appointed to hear this
case. A copy of this letter is attached to this decision as Exhibit I.

3. The Complainant presents evidence
in the form of a certificate issued by the U.S. Patent and Trade mark Office
showing that the Complainant, Columbine JDS Systems, Inc., is the present
owner of the trademark, ADSERVE, that had been originally registered with
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 20, 1997 by KTS Automation,
Inc.; that such trademark had been in use since June 1971, and that such
trademark had been assigned to Columbine JDS Systems, Inc. on June 28,
1999. Upon receiving the Complaint eResolution verified that the domain
name of adserve.com had been registered with Network Solutions, Inc. by
Jin Lu in January 1999. This set the stage for the domain name dispute
in this case.

4. A. The Complainant states that
the trademark, Adserve is used in connection with its goods and services
for computer software for advertising agencies and media buying organizations
and alleges that the Respondent does not conduct any trade or business
utilizing this domain name or similar mark and has no rights or legitimate
interest in this domain name.

The Complainant further alleges that
the Respondent has registered a large number of domain names and appears
to be a speculator in domain names or a cyber squatter.

Complainant further alleges the Respondent's
registration of the disputed domain name is in bad faith as the Respondent
is presumed to have had notice of the prior registration of the trademark
and that the continued use of this domain name is only to deny the complainant
the right to use its mark .

The Complainant also states that
a complaint was filed with Network Solutions, Inc, under that entity's
prior policy on domain name dispute settlement procedures, which was terminated
when Network Solutions, Inc, adopted the ICANN Domain Name Dispute Policy.

B. The Respondent alleges that he
had no knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark when the domain name was
registered and that he originally acquired the name for his partner who
was working for an Internet advertising firm, Adknowledge. Although the
domain name was never actually used, the Respondent further alleges that
he decided to keep this domain name for his own use when his partner left
this business, as its registration had been paid for two years.

The Respondent further alleges that
he is not using the domain name in bad faith and would have no reason to
do so. He further denies that he is a speculator in domain names for resale
but admits that he does have an interest ['stake'] in another company which
apparently owns many domain names. This company, the Respondent claims,
is a legitimate business enterprise, which in effect, leases domain names
for use by others.

5. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy [hereafter the ICANN Policy], Paragraph 1, makes it clear
that the ICANN Policy is incorporated in each Registration Statement by
reference and that the Registrant is considered to know its contents. The
ICANN Policy further states that a Registrant is bound by this Policy and
that disputes between the Registrant and a third party over a domain name
must be resolved by the system of arbitration conducted under the ICANN
Rules called a 'mandatory administrative proceeding'. [See Paragraph 4
of the ICANN Policy].[All references to Paragraph numbers are to the respective
paragraphs in the ICANN Policy, unless otherwise noted.]

The ICANN Policy was adopted in order
to ensure that disputes arising from domain names could be resolved in
an efficient manner that is fair to the parties to the dispute. Such parties
are given the opportunity to present evidence to an independent and impartial
arbitrator to support the claims made by the Complainant on the one hand,
and for the Respondent, on the other, to demonstrate that the use of the
disputed domain name is proper and in accordance with the ICANN Policy.
[See Paragraph 4].

In the instant case, as noted above,
the Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed
domain manner in a manner prohibited by the ICANN Policy. Paragraph 4a
requires the Complainant to demonstrate that three elements of a case are
present for either cancellation or transfer of the disputed domain name.
These are: a. That the domain name in question
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the complainant has rights. b. That the Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and c. The domain name was registered
and is being used in bad faith.

The question before this Panel, therefore,
is whether the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Paragraph
4a with respect to these three elements.

(i) Is the disputed domain name identical
or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark? The Panel finds that the Complainant
has met its burden of proof with respect to the question whether the disputed
domain name is '. . . identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or
service mark in which the complainant has rights.. . .' [Paragraph 4a(i).]

This finding is based on the evidence
submitted by the Complainant in the form of a certificate issued by the
US Patent and Trademark Office, as noted above, which proves that the disputed
domain name [omitting the .com] is identical to that of the name registered
by the Complainant.

While it is possible that the Complainant
could have made a stronger case for his claim of confusion between the
use of the trademark and the domain name by showing that consumers or others
utilizing the Complainant's services were actually confused between the
two or that the Complainant had lost business because of this confusion,
we find that the level of proof that is required to meet the burden by
the Complainant does not require the presentation of such additional tangible
evidence. The existence of a trademark which is the same as or similar
to the domain name, under such circumstances, is usually sufficient to
demonstrate that such confusion is likely to exist.

(ii) Does the Respondent have any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name? Undoubtedly, the registrant of a
domain name acquires certain rights and interests in such a domain name
by virtue of its registration. The ICANN Policy requires the Complainant
to be able to demonstrate that the Respondent has not acquired any other
interest or right in the domain name..[Paragraph 4c] Thus, the Registrant
may show in its defense that the domain name is properly being used in
the course of a business or other endeavor which is furthered by the use
of the domain name. [Paragraph 4c(i)]

For example, a photographer, having
registered the domain name, photoclick, may be said to have acquired rights
or legitimate interests in the domain name if the name is being used in
furtherance of his photographic business, even if another party claims
that this domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that of a
previously registered trademark. See e.g. Infospace.com Inc. v. Infospace
Technology Co. Ltd., [Case No. D2000-0074, March 28, 2000].

In this particular case, however,
we find that, although the Respondent claims that there was an intent to
use the domain name in furtherance of his partner's business activities,
he does not show that any such activities were actually carried out. Indeed,
he admits that he was not actually using the domain name and that it had
been 'warehoused'. Under such circumstances, we can only come to the conclusion
that the Respondent had not acquired any such other interest or rights
in the domain name and his claim, therefore, is invalid.

(iii) Was the domain name registered
and it is being operated in bad faith? The Complainant is required to demonstrate
that at least one of the four situations detailed in Paragraph 4 b is applicable
to both the registration and use of the disputed domain name. Proving bad
faith in just one of these two situations is not sufficient.

The Respondent claims that he did
have any actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant's trademark
at the time he registered the domain name. There is no evidence to the
contrary. Nevertheless, we are of the view that while the potential registrant
of a domain name has no obligation to search the trade mark registries
of all the countries of the world, we are of the view that a US business
person must be presumed to have knowledge of the existence of the Trade
Mark Register of his own country and, as a prudent businessman, should
make a search of such register before embarking on a business endeavor
involving a domain name. We find that the failure to make even a rudimentary
effort to undertake such a search to be negligent.

While such actions may not necessarily
constitute bad faith in and of themselves, it is the view of this Panel
that bad faith can be attributed to such actions if the Respondent is subsequently
advised that the domain name chosen is identical to that of a registered
trademark and does nothing to correct the situation, especially when taken
in context of the Respondent's failure to make any legitimate use of the
domain name. It is, therefore, our view that an inference may be drawn
from a registrant's subsequent actions as to its intent in registering
a domain name. The Complainant alleges that the
Respondent is a 'cyber squatter' or speculator in the sale of domain names.
The Respondent denies this allegation, claiming that the company which
in which he has an interest, noname.com, is a legitimate enterprise not
in the business of selling domain names.

While, the Panel would have preferred
affidavits on this matter and perhaps the opportunity to obtain additional
evidence on this point, based on the statements contained in the Response,
the Panel is of the view that there was no legitimate reason for the Respondent
to maintain ownership of the domain name, even if we accept, arguendo,
his statements that there may have been such a reason for the original
registration. Furthermore, the fact that the Respondent's e-mail address
is that of the company leasing domain names in which he claims he has only
a 'stake' leads us to find that his interest in such company is greater
than the Respondent admits.

This, in our view, deepens the belief
that the Respondent's actions regarding the use of the domain name were
and continue to be in bad faith.

Accordingly we find that the registration
and the utilization of the disputed domain name, adserve.com, were
in bad faith and thus in violation of ICANN Policy.

In view of this finding we need not
determine a whether the Respondent also registered the domain name for
any unlawful purpose nor whether he knowingly used the disputed domain
name in violation of any other applicable rules sand regulations, other
than those cited above of the ICANN Policy and Rules.

6. Accordingly, the Complainant's
request for transfer to it of the disputed domain name is granted and,
in accordance with Paragraph 3c, the Panel orders the domain name of adserve.com
to be transferred to the Complainant.

This decision of the Administrative
Panel in Case No. AF-0137 was rendered on the 28th of April, 2000. Maurice Wolf,Lead Panelist

Domain Name Transferred

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in title

Search in content

Search in content

Search in excerpt

Search in posts

Search in posts

Search in pages

Search in pages

Filter by Categories

DNattorney com blog

DNattorney.com blog

Uncategorised

Uncategorised

Fast Free Consultations

CALL US TOLL-FREE at 1-866-654-7129

Are you buying or selling domain names?

If you are interested in buying a domain name, a domain name portfolio, a website, or network of websites, very often a better price can be obtained from the seller by employing the services of an experienced Internet lawyer. We have acted for numerous domain name and website buyers and sellers, all over the world. We have acted in sales of single domain names from as little as $10,000.00 to sales of major domain name portfolios of over $10,000,000.00

Do you need help in a Domain Name Dispute?

We represent both domain name registrants and trademark owners in connection with Domain Name Disputes. Since 1999, we have represented hundreds of clients all over the world in Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Complaints before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), and in Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) arbitrations before the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC) and Resolution Canada, as well as other online arbitration service providers.

Did cybersquatters take your domain name?

The first step in recovering your domain name from a cybersquatter is research. Whenever we are retained to assist you with recovering a domain name that rightfully belongs to you, we begin by thoroughly researching every aspect of the domain name and investigating the background of the cybersquatter. We employ unique methods that enable us to know who the cybersquatter is, what their intentions are, and the best method for recovering a particular domain name in the circumstances. In this manner, we always are able to provide you with the complete picture of the prospects for recovery and the issues that may be faced during the recovery process.

Who operates DNattorney.com?

Zak Muscovitch is a Canadian intellectual property lawyer. He is the founder of Domain Name Law Reports and has represented clients before domain name arbitrations in cases against companies like Google, Torstar, and Molson. Muscovitch was the founder and publisher of Domain Name Law Reports - a volunteer organization that helped lawyers research Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy and cases. Muscovitch has also released several studies. In 2010 he published a study following the case distribution among the panelists at National Arbitration Forum.